"This composer clearly believes that when someone downloads a copy of his music, it somehow deprives him of something by the examples he gives."
No, I think you missed the point of his argument. Perhaps he chose poor examples, but overall it seems his belief is that when someone offers a copy of his music for free it deprives him of something (the ability to make money selling his music). I would think it's pretty obvious that's a reasonable belief.
I think there are certainly areas where copyright law is abused, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. This composer has made his work available at a reasonable price ($3.99 for sheet music is a bargain) and in a convenient form (DRM free download). A composer can't exactly go on tour like a musician can. Finally, he's politely asking people to stop, rather than suing them, and is going after the producers of illegal copies, rather than the consumers.
To bring this thread back on topic, note that the composer didn't say he wanted his stuff DRMed. All he wanted was for people not to offer copies of it to others online.
Toronto isn't in the US so isn't relevant to what we're talking about.
As far as the arrests in Toronto, it's quite possible those people were breaking a law, whether a fair one or not. In this case it seems the photographers checked to make sure they weren't doing anything illegal.
Police departments who have to pay out a lot of damages in lawsuits get a lot of scrutiny from governments who have to fund them, who get a lot of scrutiny from taxpayers who have to fund THEM. Voters might not get excited over some photographers getting harassed, but they're usually quite willing to get excited about multiple, unnecessary lost lawsuits.
We use energy stored in chemical bonds all the time. Gasoline, which I already mentioned, is the most high profile of them.
True, this compound is produced in an unusual way but it's being somewhat stable at room temperature in no way indicates that the energy it stores can't be fairly easily released. That is, your statement:
"Either you create very stable structures that cannot be used for energy extraction or you create something that will release that energy."
As a public citizen you can't commit trespass on public property. I believe that is the situation in the US as well. The article states that the metro stations and trains are public property.
You hit the wrong button then, because you replied to my post. Go back and check. There's this handy button that says "Parent." or you can just look at the handy graphical threading display.
That's an image from WISE. The WISE telescope images down to wavelengths of 22 microns. Planck's HIGH FREQUENCY detector is sensitive to wavelengths in the range of 300 microns and the low frequency instruments go down to 1 cm. There's a wee bit of a difference there.
Yes, it's quite impossible to have compounds that are stable enough to store energy but, with a little incentive, will release it. Such compounds, fancifully called "fuel" have been demonstrated to be against the laws of physics.
The article isn't clear about what exactly goes on, but it does suggest that the mechanical energy used to compress the stuff is converted into chemical energy held in the bonds. It's possible that those bonds remain somewhat stable at normal pressure. In that case you could probably break those bonds by providing a bit of energy of your own. Just like with gasoline - it's mostly stable until you provide a bit of energy (a match, say), and then the stored energy is released.
Did you read the article? Did you read the post I replied to? It doesn't sound like it.
The GP said "the only way to really fix this is to go ahead and get arrested." We both realize they didn't get arrested, because we both read the article. Your "first of all" is meaningless.
"Second," the photographers did NOT screw up by not getting written permission. They asked whether photography was allowed, and were told that yes, it is. That is, they were told they didn't NEED written permission (or any other kind). The point they were making is that security and the police are being overzealous, enforcing laws and policies that don't exist. It was not to acquire pictures of the Miami metro system.
I'm a little surprised he didn't. I'm not an American, but if the cops arrest you with no reason don't you then turn around and sue them for false arrest? A few expensive lawsuits would probably convince whoever is in charge to train their police officers a little better.
MR scanners usually produce individual files that are smaller than a MB. I think the poster was referring to the total size of the dataset.
It's quite possible that when they analyze the images they put them in a format where individual files are considerably larger though. It's a pain to do 3D, 4D or 5D analysis on a set of 2D files.
My roommate (male) answered the door for some Mormons once. Of course it was two hot girls so he let them tell him whatever they wanted, took their literature and pretended to be VERY interested.
Naturally they sent someone else around to follow up. Except the followup as a couple of skinny guys. My other roommate (female) answered. Her sister had just converted to Mormonism because she was marrying a Mormon and my roommate was very unimpressed with various aspects of Mormonism, including baptizing family members in absentia against their wishes, not allowing non-Mormon family members into the temple to see the wedding, etc. I think those two guys got an earful.
1. Maybe god didn't like them trying to rape his kid, never mind the homosexuality.
2 & 3. Good luck with that. You can't have homosexual sex the same way you have heterosexual sex. There's a part missing.
4-6. So homosexuals don't get into heaven. They probably wouldn't want to go there anyway. That doesn't excuse persecuting them here on earth.
The bible is almost always nonspecific and fuzzy, which is the only reason anyone sane can justify following it today. It's not hard to twist the actual words to support almost any position you care to take.
The passages in liviticus are surprisingly clear for the bible. The Sodom and Gomorrah story doesn't necessarily have anything to do with homosexuality though. Trying to rape gods kid would surely qualify for extermination even if it weren't homosexual rape.
This was actually a fun conversation I had with the local jehova's witness lady who seemed to think an unmarried guy living with female roommates was somehow at high risk for "catching gay" along with other seemingly incompatible sins.
I don't think you could get over 50%. I suspect the function approaches the original probability asymptotically.
For example, choose a 1/1000 factor, or combination of factors (considerably rarer than being born on a full moon). The resulting probability is 0.5001 B-G vs. 0.4999 B-B.
It's a little unintuitive, but the math works out. Remember, there's not only an excess of double-boys-with-birthdays-on-tuesday, but you're also severely cutting the total number of families available for selection (sending home 86% of B-G and 73% of B-B). The difference is 13% of the original sample - it's a considerably larger part of the reduced sample after you send home all the non-Tuesday families.
Human brains are expensive, difficult to program, get bored, wear out and take lots of breaks. There is a huge market for something that can do some of the jobs of a human brain but with some of the desirable properties of a computer.
If any of these companies learned anything from Apple they wouldn't be announcing tablets to ship next year, they'd be announcing something new to ship this month.
There's a second selection step that's happening, and the day changes that.
Look at it the other way around, from a filtering the population point of view. The question is, what proportion of the sub-population has two-boys? Suppose I start with all the two-child families. The 2B proportion is 25% (1B1G = 50%, 2G = 25%).
Now I specify that the family in question has one boy, so I send all the 2G families home and I'm left with 2B=33%, 1B1G=66%. That's the standard question, with no day of week.
Okay, now, instead of just one boy, I specify that the family has one boy, born on a Tuesday. So I send home all the 2G families, AND all the families that have one girl and one boy not born on a Tuesday, or two boys, neither born on a Tuesday. Supposing equal day of birth distribution, I send home all but 1-6/7 of the 1B1G families and (1-(6/7)^2) of the 2B families. Whoops, see what happened? Because there is a greater chance in the 2B families that one of them was born on a Tuesday, the proportion goes up. The proportions are now 1B1G - 52%, 2B - 48%.
As the criteria becomes more selective, the proportion gets closer and closer to 50/50.
No, that's my interpretation of the question too. The article describes how the originator didn't think of the straightforward interpretation, or didn't realize it implied different probabilities.
The order of the children doesn't come into it though - it's purely a matter of selection bias.
I just filled up a 1.5 T, so yeah, I need space. And I really don't want it encrypted. So no, your particular desires are not representative of everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
"This composer clearly believes that when someone downloads a copy of his music, it somehow deprives him of something by the examples he gives."
No, I think you missed the point of his argument. Perhaps he chose poor examples, but overall it seems his belief is that when someone offers a copy of his music for free it deprives him of something (the ability to make money selling his music). I would think it's pretty obvious that's a reasonable belief.
I think there are certainly areas where copyright law is abused, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. This composer has made his work available at a reasonable price ($3.99 for sheet music is a bargain) and in a convenient form (DRM free download). A composer can't exactly go on tour like a musician can. Finally, he's politely asking people to stop, rather than suing them, and is going after the producers of illegal copies, rather than the consumers.
To bring this thread back on topic, note that the composer didn't say he wanted his stuff DRMed. All he wanted was for people not to offer copies of it to others online.
Toronto isn't in the US so isn't relevant to what we're talking about.
As far as the arrests in Toronto, it's quite possible those people were breaking a law, whether a fair one or not. In this case it seems the photographers checked to make sure they weren't doing anything illegal.
Police departments who have to pay out a lot of damages in lawsuits get a lot of scrutiny from governments who have to fund them, who get a lot of scrutiny from taxpayers who have to fund THEM. Voters might not get excited over some photographers getting harassed, but they're usually quite willing to get excited about multiple, unnecessary lost lawsuits.
We use energy stored in chemical bonds all the time. Gasoline, which I already mentioned, is the most high profile of them.
True, this compound is produced in an unusual way but it's being somewhat stable at room temperature in no way indicates that the energy it stores can't be fairly easily released. That is, your statement:
"Either you create very stable structures that cannot be used for energy extraction or you create something that will release that energy."
is a false dichotomy.
As a public citizen you can't commit trespass on public property. I believe that is the situation in the US as well. The article states that the metro stations and trains are public property.
You hit the wrong button then, because you replied to my post. Go back and check. There's this handy button that says "Parent." or you can just look at the handy graphical threading display.
That's an image from WISE. The WISE telescope images down to wavelengths of 22 microns. Planck's HIGH FREQUENCY detector is sensitive to wavelengths in the range of 300 microns and the low frequency instruments go down to 1 cm. There's a wee bit of a difference there.
The energy density of gasoline is considerably higher than things like Semtex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Yes, it's quite impossible to have compounds that are stable enough to store energy but, with a little incentive, will release it. Such compounds, fancifully called "fuel" have been demonstrated to be against the laws of physics.
The article isn't clear about what exactly goes on, but it does suggest that the mechanical energy used to compress the stuff is converted into chemical energy held in the bonds. It's possible that those bonds remain somewhat stable at normal pressure. In that case you could probably break those bonds by providing a bit of energy of your own. Just like with gasoline - it's mostly stable until you provide a bit of energy (a match, say), and then the stored energy is released.
Compared the the state of the art before this, definitely.
Did you read the article? Did you read the post I replied to? It doesn't sound like it.
The GP said "the only way to really fix this is to go ahead and get arrested." We both realize they didn't get arrested, because we both read the article. Your "first of all" is meaningless.
"Second," the photographers did NOT screw up by not getting written permission. They asked whether photography was allowed, and were told that yes, it is. That is, they were told they didn't NEED written permission (or any other kind). The point they were making is that security and the police are being overzealous, enforcing laws and policies that don't exist. It was not to acquire pictures of the Miami metro system.
I'm a little surprised he didn't. I'm not an American, but if the cops arrest you with no reason don't you then turn around and sue them for false arrest? A few expensive lawsuits would probably convince whoever is in charge to train their police officers a little better.
MR scanners usually produce individual files that are smaller than a MB. I think the poster was referring to the total size of the dataset.
It's quite possible that when they analyze the images they put them in a format where individual files are considerably larger though. It's a pain to do 3D, 4D or 5D analysis on a set of 2D files.
Just answer the door naked.
My roommate (male) answered the door for some Mormons once. Of course it was two hot girls so he let them tell him whatever they wanted, took their literature and pretended to be VERY interested.
Naturally they sent someone else around to follow up. Except the followup as a couple of skinny guys. My other roommate (female) answered. Her sister had just converted to Mormonism because she was marrying a Mormon and my roommate was very unimpressed with various aspects of Mormonism, including baptizing family members in absentia against their wishes, not allowing non-Mormon family members into the temple to see the wedding, etc. I think those two guys got an earful.
1. Maybe god didn't like them trying to rape his kid, never mind the homosexuality.
2 & 3. Good luck with that. You can't have homosexual sex the same way you have heterosexual sex. There's a part missing.
4-6. So homosexuals don't get into heaven. They probably wouldn't want to go there anyway. That doesn't excuse persecuting them here on earth.
The bible is almost always nonspecific and fuzzy, which is the only reason anyone sane can justify following it today. It's not hard to twist the actual words to support almost any position you care to take.
The passages in liviticus are surprisingly clear for the bible. The Sodom and Gomorrah story doesn't necessarily have anything to do with homosexuality though. Trying to rape gods kid would surely qualify for extermination even if it weren't homosexual rape.
This was actually a fun conversation I had with the local jehova's witness lady who seemed to think an unmarried guy living with female roommates was somehow at high risk for "catching gay" along with other seemingly incompatible sins.
I don't think you could get over 50%. I suspect the function approaches the original probability asymptotically.
For example, choose a 1/1000 factor, or combination of factors (considerably rarer than being born on a full moon). The resulting probability is 0.5001 B-G vs. 0.4999 B-B.
The music industry had that attitude. And they were exactly right, online music died completely after they removed the drm.
It's a little unintuitive, but the math works out. Remember, there's not only an excess of double-boys-with-birthdays-on-tuesday, but you're also severely cutting the total number of families available for selection (sending home 86% of B-G and 73% of B-B). The difference is 13% of the original sample - it's a considerably larger part of the reduced sample after you send home all the non-Tuesday families.
Human brains are expensive, difficult to program, get bored, wear out and take lots of breaks. There is a huge market for something that can do some of the jobs of a human brain but with some of the desirable properties of a computer.
If any of these companies learned anything from Apple they wouldn't be announcing tablets to ship next year, they'd be announcing something new to ship this month.
There's a second selection step that's happening, and the day changes that.
Look at it the other way around, from a filtering the population point of view. The question is, what proportion of the sub-population has two-boys? Suppose I start with all the two-child families. The 2B proportion is 25% (1B1G = 50%, 2G = 25%).
Now I specify that the family in question has one boy, so I send all the 2G families home and I'm left with 2B=33%, 1B1G=66%. That's the standard question, with no day of week.
Okay, now, instead of just one boy, I specify that the family has one boy, born on a Tuesday. So I send home all the 2G families, AND all the families that have one girl and one boy not born on a Tuesday, or two boys, neither born on a Tuesday. Supposing equal day of birth distribution, I send home all but 1-6/7 of the 1B1G families and (1-(6/7)^2) of the 2B families. Whoops, see what happened? Because there is a greater chance in the 2B families that one of them was born on a Tuesday, the proportion goes up. The proportions are now 1B1G - 52%, 2B - 48%.
As the criteria becomes more selective, the proportion gets closer and closer to 50/50.
No, that's my interpretation of the question too. The article describes how the originator didn't think of the straightforward interpretation, or didn't realize it implied different probabilities.
The order of the children doesn't come into it though - it's purely a matter of selection bias.
I just filled up a 1.5 T, so yeah, I need space. And I really don't want it encrypted. So no, your particular desires are not representative of everyone.